HERRERA V.

SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Petitioners Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio,
together with the other accused, Pat. Roberto Barrera and Pat. Rodolfo Alcalde, all members of
the Paranaque Police Station, were charged with two (2) counts of murder, for the killing of Shi
Shu Yang and George Go y Tan, before public respondent Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners and the other accused were arraigned but they pleaded not guilty. Petitioners then
filed a joint petition for bail raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the
prosecution failed to allege in the informations that the crimes were committed by the petitioners
in relation to their office citing the case of Bartolome v. People.
On March 18, 1992, public respondent Sandiganbayan ordered the amendment of the
informations and stated that the evidence adduced during the pre-trial of the case and the
hearing on the petition for bail shall be deemed automatically reproduced as evidence during
the trial of the case on the merits.
Arraigned anew on September 18, 1992, petitioners Herrera and Mariano entered their pleas of
not guilty and withdrew their objections to the issue of lack of jurisdiction of public respondent
Sandiganbayan over the case and moved that the proceedings and evidence presented during
their petition for bail be adopted in toto.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan should have allowed their counsel to conduct further
cross-examination on prosecution witness Winterhalter.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that Rule 132, Section 6 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence provides that upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be
cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matter stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness
and freedom from interest or bias or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon
the issue.
The cross-examination of a witness is a right of a party against whom he is called. Article III,
Section 14(2) of the Constitution states that the accused shall have the right to meet the
witnesses face to face. Rule 115, Section 1(f) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure also
states that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him. Indeed, petitioners counsel has conducted an extensive
cross-examination of witness Winterhalter on the scheduled dates of hearing.
Petitioners, therefore, cannot claim there has been any procedural infirmity in the proceedings.
Moreover, the trial court has the power to direct the course of the trial either to shorten or to
extend the direct or cross-examination of a counsel. Under Rule 133, Section 6 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence, the court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular
point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot
be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive.
But this power should be exercised with caution. Thus, it is within the prerogative of the trial
court to determine when to terminate the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution or the
defense.